Are you concerned that your spouse or significant other may be having an affair? Have you thought about using spying software to track their online activity? Before you take that step there are Federal and North Carolina laws that could expose you to both civil and criminal charges. Continue reading →
Neitzer v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2018156, 2018 WL 4519997 (2018)
(a) Facts: Husband owned and operated two businesses. The wife, who was trained as a nurse, was totally disabled after a series of spine and hip surgeries. Her income came primarily from disability benefits.
The couple separated in 2010. Their 2012 joint tax return was prepared by the husband’s business accountant. The wife was notified of the return only two hours before she was expected to sign it. The accountant had been told to disclose nothing to the wife about the husband’s personal or business finances. The wife signed the return without reading it. Continue reading →
In our practice in Greensboro, North Carolina, it is not uncommon for the parties in a divorce to agree verbally to a change in child support payments. Read on to see how such an apparent show of comity may not hold up in the eyes of the court.
Benson v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2018157, 2018 WL 4520083 (2018), aff’d, 774 F. App’x 339 (8th Cir. 2019)
(a) Facts: Wife owned a corporation that maintained and collected revenue from St. Louis parking meters. She fraudulently overbilled the city, was convicted, and went to prison. While she was in prison, the husband filed to divorce her.
Continue reading →
Asad v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 201780, 2017 WL 2211215 (2017), aff’d, 751 F. App’x 339 (3d Cir. 2018)
(a) Facts: A husband and wife owned rental properties. Each spouse was responsible for some of the properties. They filed joint tax returns in which they claimed losses on the properties. Continue reading →
Rogers v. Comm’r, 908 F.3d 1094 (7th Cir. 2018)
(a) Facts: Husband and wife filed a joint tax return for 2004. The IRS assessed a deficiency, and the parties sought review in the Tax Court. The Tax Court held for the IRS.
Three years later, the wife filed a petition for innocent spouse relief. The IRS rejected that petition. The wife sought review in the Tax Court, which agreed with the IRS. The wife appealed to the Seventh Circuit. Continue reading →
Shak v. Shak, ____ Mass. _____, SJC-12748 (2020).
Nondisparagement clauses are ubiquitous in custody agreements and orders. Generally, they are a blanket prohibition on a parent from “talking bad” about the other parent in a form that the minor child(ren) will understand (whether in their presence or on social media, etc.). These clauses are commonly included so that the child will grow up in a less tumultuous environment, free from psychological harm that stems from hurtful exchanges of words. In fact, our own courts have guidelines that are commonly incorporated into custody orders. However, the Massachusetts Supreme Court recently reviewed these clauses under a constitutional lens, and the result is quite interesting. Continue reading →
Does the entry of a court-ordered equitable distribution create an interest to a retirement asset? Do you even need to file a DRO or QDRO when an equitable distribution consent order is signed by a judge? See how the North Carolina Court of Appeals saves the award of the marital portion of a retirement account that had not been disbursed before the intestate death of the former husband. Continue reading →
Ogden v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 201988, 2019 WL 3162423 (2019)
(a) Facts: Husband and wife were married in 1991 and divorced in 2011. The wife was granted Social Security disability benefits in 2008. She received $36,083 that year and $10,297 in 2010.
On their 2008 tax return, the parties did not report the wife’s benefits. On their 2010 return, the parties reported the benefits but did not pay the tax. Both returns were prepared by the husband. Continue reading →
North Carolina adopted the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act (UIDDA) in 2007. North Carolina is one of the 42 states that have adopted the UIDDA for the sole purpose of making discovery by duces tecum and depositions easier and requiring less interaction with the court system in having to acquire commissions. The North Carolina Statute on the UIDDA is Chapter 1F, accessible at https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByChapter/Chapter_1F.pdf . Continue reading →
North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog